►
From YouTube: 3/8/2021 - Senate Committee on Growth and Infrastructure
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
C
A
Here-
and
we
will
mark
vice,
chair,
brooks
and
senator
hammond
present,
as
they
arrive
as
always
I'll
endeavor
to
make
that
known,
so
that
you'll
be
able
to
mark
them
all
right.
A
A
couple
of
reminders,
please
be
courteous
and
respectful
with
each
other
during
this
meeting.
Even
if
you
disagree
with
another
person's
position
for
those
participating
in
zoom,
please
be
sure
to
go
ahead
and
mute.
Your
microphone
when
you
are
not
speaking
since
the
building
is
still
closed.
I
wanted
to
just
go
over
a
couple
of
options
for
public
engagement.
A
A
Third
nellis
has
an
opinion
application
for
sharing
your
views
on
a
bill.
You
can
find
it
under
legislation
or
under
committee
meetings,
or
all
of
our
movies
can
be
viewed
either
online
through
nellis
or
through
the
legislature's
youtube
channel
on
the
top
of
every
page
on
nellis.
There's
a
link
to
the
help
page,
which
has
detailed
instructions
on
accessing
all
of
these
options.
A
A
134
senate
bill
134.
senator
orrinshaw
thanks
so
much
for
being
with
us.
Please
feel
free
to
start
your
presentation
when
you
are
ready.
D
Good
afternoon,
chair
harris
vice
chair,
brooks
and
members
of
the
senate
growth
and
infrastructure
committee
for
the
record
james
orenshaw,
I
represent
state
senate
district
21,
that's
parts
of
henderson
and
unincorporated
clark
county
chair
harris.
Thank
you
for
scheduling,
senate
bill
134.
Thank
you
to
your
your
policy.
Analyst,
ms
scali,
our
our
firm
former
director
of
the
research
division.
It's
a
pleasure
working
with
her
preparation
for
the
hearing.
D
I,
with
your
permission,
a
chair,
I'd
like
to
make
a
brief
introduction
and
then
turn
it
over
to
ashley
beale,
my
constituent
and
then,
if
it's
okay
with
you
chair,
walk
you
through
the
bill
on
the
amendment.
There
is
an
amendment
on
nellis
and
and
then
take
any
questions
a
little
over
a
year
ago,
a
chair
prior
to
the
just
prior
to
the
pandemic.
I
was
contacted
by
a
constituent
ms
beale,
who
you'll
see
here
on
the
screen,
who
I
had
the
opportunity
to
meet
with
and
go
over.
D
D
Other
countries
around
the
world
have
this
kind
of
policy,
and
there
is
an
amendment
that's
on
nellis
that
addresses
some
some
issues
that
were
presented
to
me
that
I
I
believe,
makes
the
bill
stronger
and
better.
But
with
your
permission,
chair
I'd
like
to
turn
it
over
to
ms
beale
and
then
walk
the
committee
through
the
building
amendment
and
take
any
questions.
E
E
I
turned
30
on
march
3rd
and
it
was
a
birthday
I
would
not
have
been
able
to
celebrate.
Without
my
donor
jessica
and
the
gift
of
organ
donation
in
2017,
I
had
a
heart
attack
and
the
doctor
still
can't
explain
why
I've
been
an
athlete,
my
entire
life.
I
was
actively
training
for
a
10k
when
it
occurred
and
neither
my
family
nor
I
have
a
history
of
cardiac
conditions,
but
things
went
really
poorly
and
the
left
half
of
my
heart
died.
E
E
I
had
multiple
central
lines,
including
a
picc
line
and
a
swan
line,
which
is
a
direct
line
that
goes
from
the
veins
in
your
neck
and
drops
across
to
the
top
of
your
heart.
I
couldn't
move
from
my
bed
to
the
chair
next
to
my
bed.
Without
a
nurse
present
and
same
goes
for
the
toilet
two
feet
away
from
the
chair.
E
I
was
attached
to
dozens
of
machines,
beeping
constantly,
as
medications
kept
me
alive
and
monitored
every
part
of
my
body
to
make
sure
it
was
operating
as
it
should.
Sleep
was
nearly
impossible
and
every
day
felt
like
a
new
defeat,
because
yet
again
no
hearts
would
became
available
every
day
consisted
of
the
same
routine.
I
was
only
permitted
to
move
if
a
nurse
was
present,
I
could
go
on
one
walk
a
day
around
the
unit
two.
E
If
I
was
lucky
and
the
nurses
had
the
time
I
was
unable
to
shower,
and
only
two
visitors
were
allowed
to
see
me
out
of
time.
Finally,
on
june
28
2017
I
received
the
call
a
match
had
been
found
and
my
transplant
would
occur.
The
next
morning
on
june
29th,
I
went
into
surgery
for
over
four
hours
and
my
heart
was
replaced
with
my
donor's
heart.
I
spent
the
next
few
years
really
recovering.
E
Even
now,
it's
not
an
easy
journey.
I
take
immune
suppressants
every
12
hours
to
keep
my
body
from
rejecting
my
heart,
but
I'm
here
I
I
survived
and
I'm
alive.
Unfortunately,
organ
donation
is
something
that
most
people
don't
really
think
about
until
it
becomes
necessary
for
themselves
or
someone
close
to
them.
E
The
united
network
for
oregon
sharing,
also
called
unos,
is
a
non-profit
that
collects
a
lot
of
data
pertaining
to
patients,
waiting
for
life-saving
transplants,
transplants
and
recovery
rates.
As
of
last
night,
there
are
107
938
people
waiting
for
a
life-saving
transplant
in
the
united
states,
and
another
name
is
added
to
the
waiting
list.
Approximately
once
every
10
minutes,
20
people
die
every
day
in
the
united
states,
waiting
on
a
life-saving
organ
transplant
and
one
deceased
donor
can
save
up
to
eight
lives
through
donation.
E
E
Add
to
this
the
fact
that
nevada
has
no
transplant
centers,
with
the
exception
that
umc
does
kidney
transplants
and
nevadans
are
suffering
to
even
seek
a
life-saving
transplants.
Nevadans
must
uproot
their
entire
lives
and
move
temporarily
to
california
or
utah
or
arizona
where
their
transplant
can
be
completed
and
then
continually
travel
back
and
forth
for
care.
I
just
counted.
E
I
made
seven
trips
to
utah
in
2020
for
ongoing
care
for
my
heart
senate
bill
134
seeks
to
help
alleviate
some
of
those
problems
by
switching
to
an
opt-out
organ
donation
system,
in
which
adults
would
be
able
to
choose
to
opt
out
of
organ
donation
at
dmv,
rather
than
opting
in
many
advanced
countries
already
follow
this
model,
including
austria,
belgium,
czech
republic,
finland,
france,
greece,
hungary,
israel,
italy,
luxembourg,
norway,
spain,
sweden
and
consequently,
spain
has
the
highest
donation
rate
in
the
entire
world.
E
E
Additionally,
being
an
organ
donor
provides
some
families
with
a
sense
of
security
and
closure.
My
donor's
mom
and
I
have
a
really
good,
ongoing
relationship,
and
she
has
told
me
consistently
how
much
it
means
to
her.
Knowing
that
a
piece
of
her
daughter
lives
on
inside
of
me
and
that,
despite
her
tragic
loss,
we
were
the
same
age.
We
were
both
26.
E
E
E
E
A
Well
I'll
just
say
very
quickly,
miss
bill.
I
believe
we're
all
glad
that
you
are
here
with
us
and
I'm
sure
the
the
children
that
you
serve
at
legal
aid
are
also
very
blessed
by
your
presence.
If
the
secretary
would
please
note
that
senator
hammond
and
vice
chair
brooks
have
both
arrived
and
I'll
turn
it
back
over
to
senator
orenshall
to
continue
walking
us
through
the
bill.
D
Thank
you
very
much
chair
harris
sections,
one
through
four
of
the
bill
change
our
statutory
language,
so
that
the
nevada
department
of
motor
vehicles,
application
form
for
a
new
driver's
license
or
an
identification
card
would
simply
offer
the
one
choice.
The
choice
to
opt
out
and
if
the
person
does
not
exercise
that
choice
to
opt
out
consent
to
be
an
organ
donor
would
be
presumed.
D
D
The
intended
first
amendment
is
to
exclude
persons
under
the
age
of
18,
which
is
consistent
with
the
current
program
and
because
miners
require
the
permission
of
their
parents
or
guardians
to
become
an
organ
donor.
The
second
two
amendments
would
require
the
nevada
department
of
motor
vehicles
to
provide
some
basic
signage
and
notification,
both
in
their
offices
and
on
the
dmv
website,
to
ensure
that
nevadans
are
made
aware
of
the
change
and
to
adopt
related
policies
and
procedures.
D
Finally,
the
last
part
of
the
proposed
amendment
would
be
to
direct
the
nevada
department
of
motor
vehicles
to
work
with
organ
donation
groups
and
other
interested
organizations,
medical
associations
to
help
raise
public
awareness
of
the
change
in
nevada
law
and
the
new
opt-out
approach,
as
well
as
the
benefits
of
organ
donations
and
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
on
us.
There
is
a
letter
of
support
that
was
submitted
by
the
nevada,
osteopathic
medical
association,
I'm
not
sure
if
anyone
from
that
organization
is
able
to
actually
be
here
at
the
hearing.
D
A
F
Yes,
I
wouldn't
want
to
disappoint
anyone.
Thank
you,
miss
beale,
although
my
issue,
my
cardiac
issue,
was
a
lot
more
benign
just
bradycardia,
where
it
just
stopped
just
stopped,
beating,
fortunately
with
the
implantation
of
a
pacemaker.
I
don't
have
to
worry
about
that
anymore.
F
So,
but
I
certainly
appreciate
you
know
where
you're
coming
from
my
question.
Is
this
and
I've
been
getting
some
questions
coming
at
me
from
disparate
sources?
Actually,
that
had
to
do
with
the
intersection
of
government
and
the
use
of
our
bodies
without
our
consent.
F
My
understanding
of
the
opt-in
language
from
years
ago
was
that
you
know
this
is
a
person's
body.
The
general
consensus
has
been
over
the
years
that
government
can't
make
art
make
choices
over
our
bodies
over
our
personal
opinions,
and
yet
this
would
seem
to
do
violence
to
that
concept.
How
do
we
square
those
two.
D
Through
you,
chair
to
senator
pickard
so
glad
you
know
that
you're
well,
you're,
well
and-
and
I
know
that
you
were
in
our
thoughts
and
prayers
when
you
were
ill
and
and
glad
glad
that
you
are
well
my
belief.
Senator
pickard
is
that
with
the
language
and
the
amendment
with
robust
notice
on
the
part
of
the
department
of
motor
vehicles
as
to
nevada
being
an
opt-out
state
and
making
that
statement
in
support
of
organ
donation,
that
no
violence
would
be
done
in
terms
of
anyone's
rights
to
their
body
or
their
organs.
D
The
decision
would
still
be
there
whether
someone
wanted
to
participate
in
being
an
organ
donor
or
not
to
participate.
There
is
a
change
in
the
language,
a
change
in
how
the
question
is
asked,
but
but
I
I
would
argue
that
the
same
autonomy
that
everyone
exercises
now
would
still
be
there.
The
question
would
be
worded
differently
and,
yes,
nevada
would
be
making
a
statement
by
being
the
first
opt-out
state
in
the
nation.
F
All
right,
I
appreciate
that
I
just
the
question
came
to
me
from
the
perspective
of
those
that
don't
have
contact
with
dmv:
either
they're
not
driving
they.
F
You
know
they
resist
contact
with
government
they're
too
old,
they're
disabled.
You
know
and
unable
to
drive,
there's
a
hole
apparently-
and
I
didn't
know
this
before
this
came
to
me-
but
there's
a
whole
host
of
people
that
don't
have
regular
contact
with
dmd
who
and
since
this
appears
to
be
going
only
through
dmv
sources.
F
They
wouldn't
get
that
notice.
What
about
those?
Particularly
when
we
talk
about
the
undocumented
individuals
that
don't
you
know
they
don't?
F
You
know,
even
though
we
try
to
make
all
sorts
of
outreach
to
them
so
that
they
can
come
in
and
and
get
driver's
licenses
and
those
sorts
of
things,
there's
a
number
of
people
that
just
don't
engage
with
government
and
so
likely
wouldn't
get
this
notice.
F
How
do
we
reach
them
and
even
if
they
have
notice
and
choose
not
to
participate
the
government's
making
that
choice
for
them,
whereas
with
an
opt-in,
even
if
they
don't
have
a
driver's
license,
they
can
get
an
id
card
and
show
that
they're
organ
donors,
which
I
am
so
I
I
certainly
agree
with
the
sentiment.
I'm
just
I'm.
I'm
struggling
with
the
idea
of
how
does
government
have
the
right
to
make
a
decision
on
behalf
of
someone
with
whom
they've
not
actually
had
a
face
to
face
or
or
some
affirmative
content.
D
And
through
you
chair
to
senator
pickard,
that's
certainly
not
how
I
interpret
the
language
on
page
four
of
the
original
bill
section
three,
if
we're
looking
at
section
three,
the
amendment
to
nrs
451.558
and
that's
certainly
not
my
intent,
and
if
we
need
to
tighten
up
that
language
to
make
it
more
clear,
I'm
open
to
any
amendments.
D
But
the
way
I
read
the
amendment
on
section
3
of
the
bill
page
4,
is
that
the
the
new
opt-out
provisions
would
be
applicable
only
to
folks
who
have
that
contact
either
to
get
a
nevada
driver's
license
or
a
nevada
id
card.
Someone
could
would
still
be
opt-in
in
terms
of
their
testamentary
documents
or
any
other
communication
provided
for
it.
Nrs
451.558,
that's
how
I
read
the
bill
and
if,
if
it
needs
to
be
clear,
I'm
certainly
open
to
any
language
to
clear
that
up
that
it
would.
A
And
so
senator
orrin
shaw,
I
have
a
question.
Would
this
allow
me
someone
who
currently
has
my
I
currently
have
my
driver's
license.
It's
not
expired.
Would
I
automatically
be
presumed
to
have
opted
into
organ
donation
prior
to
my
next
renewal.
D
That's
certainly
not
my
intent
and
I'm
hopeful
that
with
the
language
and
the
conceptual
amendment
when
it
comes
out
as
a
formal
amendment
that
it
will
be
clear
that
no
there
will
have
to
be
a
decision
by
anyone
who
applies
for
either
their
first
driver's
license
or
identification
card
or
for
renewal
of
either
of
those
documents,
whether
they
want
to
opt
out
or
not,
that
no
one
would
be
brought
be
made
an
organ
donor
without
having
had
that
opportunity
to
to
answer
that
question,
do
I
want
to
participate,
or
do
I
want
to
opt
out?
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Let's
go
ahead
and
move
to
vice
chair
brooks.
G
Thank
you,
chair
harris
and,
and
thank
you,
miss
beale
for
sharing
your
experience
and
your
story
with
us
that
was
powerful
and
been
is
helpful
in
putting
this
into
context,
and
thank
you
senator
hornshaw,
for
bringing
this.
My
question
is
around
your
amendment.
G
Your
proposed
amendment,
the
fifth,
the
fifth
proposed
amendment
here,
it
it
says
to
add
a
provision
to
the
bill
directly
dmv
to
collaborate
with
organ
donation,
organizations
and
other
interested
entities
in
the
development
of
an
awareness
campaign
to
inform
the
public.
But
then
it
also
says
it's
not
intended
to
require
the
dmv
to
expand
agency
funds.
What
is
your
thought
process
around?
How
that
would
that
would
go
about?
I
think
that's
a
very
important
thing
to
be
able
to
educate
folks
on
the
change
of
the
law.
G
But
how
do
we
do
that.
D
Through
you,
chair
harris
to
vice
chair,
brooks
here,
we
were
cognizant
of
trying
to
be
respectful
of
the
dmv's
resources
and
certainly
optimistic
that,
as
there
have
been,
you
know,
campaigns
in
the
past
in
support
of
becoming
an
organ
donor
through
the
opt-in
that
dmv
will
be
able
to
continue
to
work
with
organizations.
D
Assuming
that
this
passes
in
the
nevada
becomes
an
opt-out
state.
You
know,
certainly,
I
think,
for
those
of
us
who
still
go
into
dmv
locations.
There
are,
you
know,
lots
of
big
signs
and
ads
promoting
organ
donation.
Talking
about
the
choice
to
opt
in,
so
I
envisioned
something
similar
happening
in
terms
of
the
decision
now
to
opt
out.
Should
this
change
become
law.
D
You
know,
I've
had
some
actually
one
person
who
wrote
a
paper
about
this
subject
come
to
me
and
talk
to
me
a
little
bit
about
how
you
know
many
people,
you
know
they
dandelion
at
the
dmv,
trying
to
make
it
to
work,
not
be
late
and
get
their
work
done,
and
don't
really
have
a
lot
of
time
to
think
about
the
decision
and
perhaps
very
many
people
who
might
give
serious
thought
to
being
an
organ
donor.
D
You
know
procrastinate
and
put
it
off
and
say:
well,
you
know
mark
no
now,
and
you
know
I've
got
to
get
to
work.
I
want
to
talk
to
my
family
about
it.
I
want
to
think
about
it.
I
really
believe,
and
that's
the
opinion
in
this
paper-
and
I
was
hoping
to
have
this
gentleman
speak
today,
but
he
was
unable
to
allow
people
to
have
some
more
time
to
talk
to
their
loved
ones.
To
think
about
this
decision
before
they
either
go
into
the
dmv
or
go
through
the
online
process.
A
All
right
I'll
turn
to
senator
hammond
and
senator
orrinshall.
Please
feel
free
to
direct
your
answers
to
your
colleagues.
G
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
really
hope
I
can
articulate
this
really
carefully
and
and
do
it
the
right
way,
because
I
want
to
I
want
to
ask
this
question,
but
I
I
certainly
don't
want
to
offend,
and
you
know
this
is
something
it
took
me
a
long
time
to
consider,
because
I
am
also
on
my
driver's
license.
I
I'm
an
owner,
I'm
an
organ
donor.
G
So
if
they're
not
work,
if
that
the
outreach
program
hasn't
worked
in
the
past,
then
what
are
we
going
to
be
doing
differently
in
the
future,
telling
people
that
you
have
to
opt
out?
And
so,
if
we
haven't
increased
the
number
of
donors,
is
it
because
we're
not
outreaching
enough
and
people
didn't
hear
and
then
by
default,
they're
now
in
a
program
that
they
didn't
necessarily
know
they
were
going
to
be
a
part
of,
and
then
again
it
goes
back
to
senator
pickard,
and
you
know
what
kind
of
a
obligation
do
we
you
know?
G
Does
the
government
have
with
the
people
where
they're
basically
saying
you're
going
to
be
a
part
of
a
program
unless
you
know
better
and
want
to
get
out?
That's
my
concern.
Is
that
we're
going
to
be
capturing
a
lot
yet?
Maybe
our
numbers
will
go
up
like
spain's
did
and
I
don't
know
about
nova
scotia
and
their
numbers.
I'd
like
to
find
out.
You
know
what
kind
of
impact
this
has
had
in
a
place
as
recently
like
nova
scotia
like
find
out
where
the
numbers
have
gone
up
because
of
it.
G
But
I
my
concern
is
senator
that
we're
going
to
get
a
lot
of
people
who
didn't
know
that
this
this
was
in
place
and
they
did
they
just
never
thought
about
it.
They
glazed
over
it.
I
mean.
That's
a
tough
day
when
you
go
in
there
and
you
get
your
driver's
license.
You've
got
a
lot
of
things
on
your
mind
now.
G
I
recently
went
in
there
with
my
15
and
a
half
year
old,
just
getting
the
driver's
permit
and
there's
a
lot
of
paperwork
thrown
at
you
on
that
one
day
and
a
lot
of
signatures
and
a
lot
of
things
you're
supposed
to
be
doing
how
you
know
what
happens
if
they
just
glaze
over
this
and
the
next
thing
you
know
they're,
they're,
organ
donors
and
didn't
know
they
were
supposed
to
be.
Is
there
going
to
be
something
I
mean?
First
of
all,
I
worry
about
that
and
then.
G
Secondly,
is
there
something
in
that
in
the
bill
that
says
hey,
you
can
come
back
the
next
day
and
rectify
that.
If
you
didn't
want
it
or
next
month
or
something
like
that,
and
would
you
have
to
pay
the
cost
for
a
new
license
because
they,
you
know
they
put
it
on
the
license.
D
I
don't
believe,
there's
anything
that
if
someone
has
second
thoughts
for
under
the
current
program,
whether
they
opt
in
and
then
change
their
mind
or
have
a
talk
with
their
loved
ones
and
decide,
they
don't
want
to
be
an
organ
donor
to
prevent
them
from
changing
that,
and
I
certainly
don't
intend
there
to
be
any
difference
here.
If
someone
decides
to
not
opt
out
and
then
a
week
later,
suddenly
has
second
thoughts
and
thinks
this
isn't
right
for
them
to
change
that.
D
Whether
there
is
a
fee
that
I
believe
that
there
is
a
small
fee,
and
I
have
to
check
on
that.
But
I
believe
that
there
is
a
small
fee
involved
in
change
to
a
license,
but
I'm
not
100
sure
of
that.
On.
D
In
that
question,
I
have
to
do
a
little
more
research
and
get
back
to
you,
but
I
believe
there
is
a
small
fee,
but
certainly
the
intent
is
that
this
decision
be
a
conscious
decision
and
that,
certainly,
by
becoming
the
first
opt-out
state
in
the
union,
nevada
makes
a
strong
statement
of
commitment
to
organ
donation,
but
that
every
citizen
makes
the
same
conscious
decision
they
make
now.
But
there
is
a
change
in
the
wording
in
terms
of
how
how
it
is
asked.
G
Thank
you.
I
appreciate
the
answer
senator
and
your
effort
and
your
goal
is
a
noble
goal,
and
I
believe
that
again
I,
when
you
use
terms
like
robust
notification.
G
The
reason
I
worry
about
terms
like
that
is
you
know:
I've
been
in
education,
where
we
send
notice
after
notice,
after
notice,
home
with
students
there
there's
an
in
you
know
that
people
in
general
are
inundated
with
lots
of
notification
news
all
this
kind
of
stuff,
and
so
my
worry
is
that
again
that
it's,
the
information
is
glazed
over
and
without
knowingly
getting
involved
in
a
program.
Somebody
is
now
enrolled
in
something
that
is.
It
is
important
right.
D
I
understand
your
concern
senator
hammond
and
that's
certainly
not
the
intent
and
I'm
certainly
open
to
if
language
needs
tightening
trying
to
make
sure
that
that,
even
though
nevada
would
be
opt
out
that
that
there's
no
there's
no,
no
one
who
doesn't
understand
the
decision
or
doesn't
have
the
time
to
think
about
it.
A
And
senator
I
just
have
a
question
about
conversations
that
you've
had
with
the
dmv
on
the
form
that
that
any
changes
to
the
current
driver's
license
application
form
that
might
be
needed
pursuant
to
to
this
bill.
So
I
know
right
now
that
you
you
go
in
and
you
can
choose
a
box
to
opt
in
if
we,
if
we
changed
it
to
opt
out,
would
would
there
be
room
to
make
this
language?
A
You
know
30
point
font
where
the
rest
is,
let's
say,
12
point
or
also
require
it
to
be
bold
and
all
in
all
caps.
You
know
in
a
similar
way
that
we
may
do
you
know
for
the
lawyers
like
an
arbor.
You
know
in
our
arbitration
clause
right
we've,
we've
made
that
stand
out
a
bit
differently.
Have
you
had
any
discussions
about
what
that
might
look
like,
or
is
the
plan
to
keep
it
in
the
same
font
as
as
currently
on
the
floor.
D
D
Certainly
when
I've
worked
on
bills
and
we've
tried
to
specify
things
like
that
in
statute,
I've
often
been
told
you
know
by
agencies
that
it's
better
to
leave
it
to
regulation
and
allow
that
to
be
adopted
in
regulation
and,
as
I
understand
it,
there
will
be
there'll,
be
new
programming
of
computer
systems
and
that
that
that's
something
that
will
be
required.
D
I
think
there's
some
discussion
of
that
in
the
fiscal
note,
but
I
think
there
as
to
whether
we
put
the
font
level
in
statute
or
whether
that
is
left
up
to
regulation
and
that's
a
I
think,
a
decision
that
we
I'm
open
to
discussing.
I
I
know
in
the
past
I've
had
a
lot
of
pushback
with
agencies
about
tying
their
hands
with
things
in
statute,
but
I
would
certainly
want
it
as
big
and
bright
as
noticeable
as
possible.
B
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
I've.
I've
heard
some
of
the
same
concerns
that
senator
pickard
and
senator
hammond
have
expressed
in
terms
of
the
government
having
control
over
one's
body.
B
I'm
I'm
wondering
if
you
would
be
willing
to
engage
in
some
type
of
a
conversation
that
would
explain
that
pedagogical
process
and
and
perhaps
it
may
be
useful
not
only
for
this
bill
but
for
other
bills.
D
And
thank
you
senator
spearman.
I
I'm
I'm
open
to
talk
to
anyone
about
the
bill
and
about
their
concerns,
and,
but
I
just
want
to
make
it
clear.
My
intent
is
not
that
anyone
takes
control
over
anyone's
decisions
about
their
body
about
their
organs,
certainly
nevada.
If
this
pass
would
be
the
first
opt-out
state.
But
my
intent
is
that
the
decision
be
as
clear
as
it
is
now
and
that
people
you
know
have
that
that
right
to
think
about
it
and
make
that
make
that
choice.
D
I
certainly
do
hope
that,
if
this
passes
more
people
will
have
the
time
to
think
about
it
and
choose
to
do
not
opt
out
and
that
there
will
be
more
organs
that
can
save
more
people's
lives
and
that
that'll
be
part
of
the
you
know,
program
in
nevada
in
terms
of
helping
people
who
need
those
organs.
But
my
intent
is
not
that
that
anyone
take
control
over
anyone's
out
of
your
organs,
but
I'm
happy
to
talk
to
anyone.
E
May
say
one
one
thing
in
response
to
a
concern:
I
apologize.
No,
please
go
ahead.
I
know
that
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about.
You,
know
kind
of
this
government
control
of
of
the
body
after
death,
and
one
thing
that
I
just
want
to
make
very
clear
with
this.
E
Is
you
know,
of
course
the
intent
is
not
that
at
all
and
the
intent
is
there
that
everyone
have
the
opportunity
to
opt
out,
but
additionally,
becoming
an
organ
donor
does
not
impact
anything
that
occurs
with
the
body
after
death
other
than
the
removal
of
the
organs.
So
organ
donors
are
still
eligible
to
have
a
burial.
They
are
still
able
to
have
open,
casket
funerals.
E
The
process
by
which
organs
are
procured
is
so
advanced.
So
what
happens
with
someone's
body
whether
they
are
buried,
whether
they
have
an
open,
casket
funeral,
whether
they're
cremated?
Those
decisions
would
still
be
entirely
in
the
hands
of
the
deceased.
If
they
have
a
advanced
directive
or
a
living
will
or
their
family
members,
the
the
whole
body
would
still
be
within
the
control
of
the
family.
The
program
would,
just
you
know,
provide
the
opportunity
for
for
people
to
more
easily
become
donors
for
their
organs.
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Thank
you,
miss
beale.
Before
I
turn
it
over
to
testimony.
I
just
want
to
let
the
committee
know
I
may
have
to
step
away
during
testimony
to
present
one
of
my
own
bills.
If
I
do,
I
will
hand
it
over
to
my
capable
vice
chair
sandra
brooks
and
with
that,
let's
go
ahead
and
open
up
testimony
in
support
of
sb
134.
H
H
H
I
I
He
had
listed
on
his
driver's
license
that
he
wanted
to
be
a
donor.
He
had
many
donations
of
his
body
and
tissues
made
that
day
he
died
in
his
death.
He
helped
to
save
many
lives.
My
family
has
been
involved
in
both
sides
of
this
issue.
Giving
and
receiving
the
dmv
has
many
links
for
information
about
body,
donation
and
tissue
donations
forms
to
get
a
person
started
with
that.
I
Their
links.
Psas
have
been
going
on
for
many
years,
and
everyone
knows
how
things
already
work
you
everybody
knows
that
you
go
to
the
dmv
or
you
can
get
the
forms
from
the
dmv.
For
this
particular
thing
now
you
want
to
confuse
the
issue
and
confuse
the
people.
People
understand
opt-in.
They
work
with
opt-in
all
the
time.
Now
you
want
to
opt
out
and
we
believe
that
opting
out
is
the
wrong
way
to
go.
It
feels
sneaky
and
very
dangerous.
H
I
We
oppose
fb
134
on
anatomical
gifts,
not
because
we
oppose
the
choice
of
giving
organs,
but
because
it
takes
away
the
basic
right
of
affirmative
consent.
This
bill
changes
our
anatomical
gifts
bill
from
an
opt-in
to
an
opt-out
nevada
has
adopted
the
uniform,
anatomical
gift
act
recommended
by
the
uniform
commissioners,
which
identify
areas
that
would
benefit
from
uniformity
nationwide.
I
A
rights-based
culture
is
well
matched
with
the
uniform
anatomical
gifts
act,
legal
framework
requiring
an
affirmative
voluntary
decision
to
make
a
gift.
Under
this
opt-in
policy,
the
united
states
experienced
over
27
percent
in
growth
in
deceased
organ
donors
and
transplants
in
the
last
10
years.
This
includes
142
million
registered
donors.
As
of
january
2018,
representing
over
54
percent
of
the
adult
population,
some
areas
of
the
united
states
significantly
exceeded
the
donation
rate
of
spain.
I
H
A
J
Thank
you
very
much
chair
harris
for
the
record
tonya
laini
administrator
of
the
nevada
dmv.
I
am
here
today
to
testify
neutral
on
behalf
of
the
department,
I
would
just
like
to
say
that
we
did
have
an
opportunity
to
see
that
an
amendment
did
come
through
that
will
change
our
current
fiscal
note
that
we
had
submitted
of
no
fiscal
impact
to
now.
We
believe
it
may
have
a
minimal
fiscal
impact.
Our
team
is
actively
reviewing
that
amendment
now
and
we'll
get
that
submitted,
and
then
we
would
just
like
to
please
ask
senator
orrin
shaw.
J
A
All
right,
thank
you
and
we'll
go
ahead
and
turn
back
to
the
phone
line
for
any
neutral.
Testifiers
who've
queued
up.
H
C
D-A-N-M-U-S-G-R-O-V-E
strategy
360
here
today
on
behalf
of
the
nevada
donor
network
nevada
donor
network,
is
the
opo
for
14
to
17
nevada
counties,
and
it
is
our
staff
who
obtain
the
authorization,
good
donation
and
work
in
accordance
with
the
anatomical
gift
act
and
work
with
families
and
loved
ones.
For
that
amazing
gift
of
life
that
they
all
give,
and
I
can't
think
of
a
better
spokesperson
for
organ
donation
than
ashley,
and
I
absolutely
applaud
her
efforts
and
the
senators
in
this
regard.
C
C
If
you
look
at
section
3
number
1a
you're,
looking
at
not
refusing
to
authorize
now
one
of
the
things
that
the
uga
is
actually
based
on,
it's
a
an
affirmative
voluntary
act
that
cannot
be
met
on
the
basis
of
inaction
and,
in
other
words,
a
failure
to
opt
out.
So
this
conflict
with
gif
law
could
lead
to
legal
challenges
when
it
comes
to
ana
anatomical
gifts
made
under
the
opt-out
system.
C
We're
also
wondering
legal
scholars
have
pointed
the
possibility
of
a
constitutional
challenge
to
that
presumed
consent
that
the
uaga
that
nevada
has
adopted.
So
you
probably
would
have
to
remove
this
gift
this
opt-in
and
put
it
in
a
different
health
care
statute,
because
we
would
no
longer
be
in
sync
with
the
uniform,
anatomical
gift
act.
Now
you
know
nevada
donor
network
on
every
metric
that
cms
tracks
is
number
one
in
the
world
when
it
comes
to
both
organ
donations
and
and
donate.
C
Don't
folks
who
sign
up
to
be
recipients
per
thousand
nevada
donor
network
wants
to
do
everything
it
can
to
promote
organ
donation
and
believe
me,
this
sounds
like
a
great
idea.
It's
just.
There
are
reasons
that
no
other
state
has
adopted
this,
and
there
are
concerns
that
it
actually
could
go
to
the
opposite
direction
of
actually
chilling
folks,
because
it's
a
very
important
medical
decision
that
we're
asking
folks
to
make-
and
we
certainly
don't
want
them
to
be-
and
I
hate
to
use
this
word
but
tricked
into
becoming
a
donor
and
granted.
C
I
appreciate
all
the
work
that
senator
orrinshaw
has
done
in
some
of
his
amendment
today
and
we
have
had
robust
discussions
with
senator
orrinshaw
about
this
and
and
believe
me.
Ashley's
story
is
incredible
and
I'm
so
glad
that
that
she
had
the
ability
to
receive
an
organ
donation
and
and
and
believe
me,
I
see
this
her
heart
is
in
absolutely
the
right
place
on
wanting
to
expand
organ
donation,
but
we're
just
concerned
about
the
unintended
consequences
and
commit
to
working
with
the
senator
in
this
committee
to
see
if
there's
something
that
we
can
do.
A
Okay
with
that,
then
I
will
turn
it
back
over
to
senator
orange
shawl.
If
you'd
like
to
make
any
closing
comments.
D
Thank
you
chair
harrison.
Thank
you
committee.
I
really
appreciate
your
time
and
I
want
to
thank
ms
beale
for
contacting
me
and
for
sharing
what
what
she's
been
through
with
the
committee.
Certainly
the
intent
of
this
bill
is
to
make
a
bold
statement
that
nevada
would
be
the
first
opt-out
state
in
the
nation.
D
There
is
no
intent
for
to
replace
anyone's
conscious
decision
as
to
whether
they
want
to
participate
or
not,
and
I'm
certainly
open
to
trying
to
perfect
any
amendments
that
would
make
that
clear
and
I
I'm
looking
forward
to
working
with
all
the
the
stakeholders.
Thank
you,
chair.